This would include the things like firing healthcare workers, leading to other problems being undiagnosed, and worsening instead of being treated. I would also include lockdowns and mask mandates as being responsible for increased amounts of depression, which has a known poor impact on survival over time, and that's not just counting suicide.

if your going to make shit up at least make up believable bullshit.

And it doesn't have to be widespread - given the thin staffing margins that hospitals already run on, losing a small amount of people in a large facility can have outsized effects.

I'd thank you to engage with the argument in good faith per the site guidelines, or don't bother responding.

once you actually have a position that can be discussed. show me evidence of your position and I'll stop calling it a bat shit insane conspiracy theory.

right now all you've done is assert complete bullshit. I can link to articles with hospitals stating how many of their staff they've fired due to anti-vax behaviors. I doubt you can find a single instance of a hospital shortage due directly to the few thousand works in the entire country who were fired for their anti-vax beliefs.

even if you did find a hospital in that position, the issue certainly isn't wide spread enough to even merit a footnote when it comes to health policy.

Some doctors are reporting adverse/fatal effects associated with the use of Remdesivir (which hospitals are using to treat COVID patients). These issues include acute kidney injury, bradycardia, and death. The CDC has counted these deaths as COVID deaths as well.

There are also other aspects of COVID that seem difficult to suss out. For example, how many people have died from the vaccines? VAERS is reporting 22,193 vaccine-related deaths and over 1 million adverse reactions. There are also deaths and suicides caused by our response to COVID; e.g., the lockdowns, depression, job loss, fear of going to the doctor/hospital due to COVID, etc. Those aren't being counted as COVID-related deaths by the CDC, but perhaps they should be.

Even if you removed all the politicization/propaganda of both COVID and the vaccines, it still seems like we've made a lot of mistakes during the past two years that would make producing an accurate death count virtually impossible.

This must be a golden age for those doing a dissertation on media studies. So many quant-driven narratives, so little time. Hopefully cross-country data and narratives are being archived and aggregated into an open-data academic repository that can be studied in coming years.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

> recent study from Israel showed that while a fourth dose of an mRNA vaccine boosted antibodies, the level was not high enough to prevent infection by the Omicron variant ... the debate appears to have shifted with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) saying on Friday that international regulators now preferred clinical studies to be carried out before approval of a new vaccine ... it may not be possible to realise a current plan to launch an Omicron-targeting vaccine by the end of March ... Inclusion of clinical trial data in the regulatory filings may have an impact on the delivery of initial batches.

It's like arguing about the raw data of the Wright brothers flight, when millions of people are flying around the world on 747s. Was it relevant in the past? Yes. Is it relevant today? No.

You want to know about vaccine safety? Look at excess mortality, hospital admissions, and long-term health problems of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, today. Ten billion COVID vaccines have been administered around the world in the past year. Any of the data we've gathered from that is about a thousand times more relevant to literally anything we could be doing, than raw study data on a few thousand people.

Most ethical and legal systems around the world, in fact, would use that evidence to both convict the criminal, and then independently recommend separate sanctions for breaking procedures.

But we're not even talking about ethics or legality, here. We are talking about knowledge. People claim that we don't know about the safety of vaccines because we don't have data on trials conducted on thousands of people.

... Yet we have data about vaccines administered to billions of people. Why don't those critics look at that data, instead?

It's because knowledge and fact-finding isn't the point of that complaint. The people asking about this don't actually care about having a data-driven argument about the safety or efficacy of vaccines, they just found a procedural problem, that they can play a political game with. The politics is the entire point.